2005 (9) TMI 655 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the actions of the Bar Associations in suspending advocates who refused to participate in the strike call amount to contempt of court.
2. The legality and professional conduct concerning lawyers' strikes.
3. The role and duties of Bar Councils in regulating professional conduct and handling strikes.
4. The authority of courts over the conduct of advocates within court premises.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Contempt of Court by Bar Associations:
The judgment addressed whether the punitive actions taken by the Delhi High Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association against advocates who did not participate in the strike call amounted to contempt of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment in the case of Common Cause 'A Registered Society vs. Union of India. The Court reiterated the legal position established in previous judgments, particularly emphasizing that no adverse or penal consequences should befall any lawyer who chooses to appear in court despite a strike call. The Court noted that since the alleged actions occurred in 1999 and 2000 and had not been repeated, no further action was necessary beyond reiterating the established legal principles.

2. Legality and Professional Conduct Concerning Lawyers' Strikes:
The Court reiterated the well-settled law that lawyers have no right to go on strike or call for a boycott, as established in Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India. The judgment emphasized that it is unprofessional and unbecoming for a lawyer to refuse to attend court due to a strike call. The Court highlighted that lawyers are officers of the court and have a duty to ensure the smooth functioning of the judiciary, which strikes disrupt. It was clarified that lawyers holding Vakalats must attend court and cannot be coerced into participating in strikes by Bar Associations or Councils.

3. Role and Duties of Bar Councils:
The Court criticized the Bar Council of India for not incorporating the directions from the Common Cause case into its Conduct and Disciplinary Rules. The judgment stressed that Bar Councils have a duty to prevent unprofessional and unbecoming conduct, including strikes. The Court held that Bar Councils must take disciplinary action against advocates who call for or participate in strikes and must not entertain requisitions for meetings to consider strike calls. The judgment also highlighted that professional misconduct could amount to contempt of court and that Bar Councils must act to uphold the dignity of the profession and the courts.

4. Authority of Courts over Conduct of Advocates:
The judgment clarified that the right to practice law includes various professional activities, but the right to appear in court is subject to the court's control and supervision. The Court emphasized that it has the power to regulate the conduct of advocates within court premises, distinct from the Bar Council's disciplinary jurisdiction. The judgment noted that courts could frame rules to debar advocates guilty of contempt or unprofessional conduct from appearing in court. The Court underscored that the control of court proceedings remains with the judiciary, and advocates must comply with the conditions laid down by the courts.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded by reiterating that lawyers have no right to strike and must ignore any strike calls. It emphasized the duty of Bar Councils to prevent and discipline unprofessional conduct related to strikes. The judgment discharged the contempt notices and disposed of the contempt petitions and interim applications, hoping that better sense would prevail and self-restraint would be exercised by the legal profession.